About Cal Skinner

We Hate Spam!

We have recently instituted a system of spam control that helps keep the McHenry County Blog a lean, mean information machine. A side product of this process is that in certain cases you might be blocked or challenged to prove that you aren't a robot in order to comment on articles.

If for some reason the automated processes that are in place to prove that you are a human do not work, or if you have any other technical problems with the blog, please email techguy at any time for speedy resolution.

Post navigation

Franks Follows Gay Agenda Again

House Bill 217 forbids “gay conversion therapy” by mental health professions. It was defined as attempts to change a young person’s sexual orientation from gay to straight by State Senator Daniel Bliss, a Democrat from Evanston.

Jack Franks

Of local legislators, all three Republican State Senators,

Pam Althoff

Dan Duffy

Karen McConnaughay

voted against the restriction on medical practices.

In the House, the GOP State Representatives opposing the legislation were

Steve Andersson

David McSweeney

Mike Tryon

Barb Wheeler

Democrat Jack Franks went along with most of his Democratic Party colleagues, just as he did when he voted to legalize gay marriage and civil unions.

I was under the impression it had more to do with it not being substantiated by the medical community and above and beyond that they actually said it causes psychological trauma, which sort of makes sense.

Republican Governor Chris Christie signed a conversion ban by the way.

Nameless, maybe we have differing ideologies – maybe your gripe lies with regulation, maybe you are a libertarian, maybe you truly believe like you say that you don’t care about same sex marriage or what gays do.

Maybe that’s true.

It still doesn’t change the simple fact that this therapy is scientificly invalid and states allowing such practices to continue is immoral and unethical.

Your libertarianism is the opposite side of communism on the same coin.

Actually, if we’re going to talk about evidence based medicine and if there is no proof of said treatment being effective, then most people would deduce that treatment is ineffective and thus not the appropriate intervention.

Second, it’s kind of sad we assume people need intervention for being gay in the first place.

People need to stop denying that being gay, for most people, is not their choice any more than your choice for being heterosexual, white, or tall.

Comparing this to a teen boob job is a lot different.

People do cosmetic surgeries to make themselves feel better.

Is there evidence that these surgeries cause damage like there is in regard to gay conversion therapy?

I’m not talking about a botched surgery.

There is potential for harm in any medical treatment.

I was not talking about potential harm, I was talking about actual psychological damage that children suffer from due to these conversion therapies.

Another important concept to remember is consent.

Are you suggesting that teens are being forced against their will to have boob jobs?

I have never heard of that before and my guess is most doctors wouldn’t perform an operation like that.

There is a big difference between a kid wanting to get such a surgery and their parents okaying it and being forced into conversion therapy.

Based on your rhetoric, I’d say you sound like you may be a strict conservative or libertarian.

Assuming I’m correct, how does sending your kid to a conversion camp fit into the concept of consent which is an extremely important component of those political philosophies?

But moving beyond the issue of consent, as I’ve already considered some of the responses you might have for that, let’s go back to what I said about harm.

If you were to say, “well they’re a child so they don’t have full rights yet and adults have to intervene to do what’s best for the child because he/she doesn’t know better”, I would say that makes the argument for banning conversion therapy even stronger.

If you are going to have a legal structure where you disregard consent, then why the heck would you be for forcing that child, against their will, to do something that is actually harmful?

I’m not sure you have thought this thing out very well, and again the concept of protecting people from harm is one of the most critical and basic functions of the government.

This is why most conservatives and libertarians who believe in a very limited government are fine with laws criminalizing theft, battery, etc.

You do not have a right to harm someone, and this is a sentiment shared by many influential thinkers in conservative and libertarian circles including Locke, Burke, and Mill.

Here’s a question that may make you rethink this.

Would you support the right of a parent to treat their kids’ illnesses through bloodletting?

We are going in circles here, so this will be my last posting on the topic.

1 First bloodletting: bloodletting has not been banned by the legislature, but by advancement of our understanding of human pathology. Bloodletting was discredited by Pasteur and others and for good reasons. My wild guess here is that if bloodletting had become the subject of the Illinois legislature, we would still be fighting a culture war about it.

Another point related to bloodletting: there is one disorder where bloodletting is standard and perfect treatment to this day. Google “haemochromatosis”

2. I am not arguing for or against having, or not having, a choice in being gay. I do not know enough about it to say. I do not wish to force treatment on nonconsenting adults.

What I am saying is that it is not the job of the legislature to determine effectiveness or not of “gay conversion” or any other treatment. To use the example you kindly gave, I do not want the Illinois legislature to outlaw bloodletting.

3. It is a child’ parents who have the kid’s best interest in mind. If the parents do not have the kid’s best interest in mind, that kid is doomed anyway. I know this will provoke outcries from the do-gooders, but such is reality. And so, if there is scope for improving parenting skills, it can perhaps from education, not from legislation.